Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 June 1

= June 1 =

Resonances??
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I have always been under the impression that there are certain words in English that do not lend themselves to plurals. Some such from a very long list are maintenance, prurience, severance, radiance, ambience and clairvoyance. Some time ago I started an article on an astrophysics phenomenon called Lindblad resonance. The article was soon discovered by passing editors who felt that because some technical papers used the word "resonances", it had to be correct. My pointing out that any number of papers did NOT use the plural, seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Are any linguists reading this and could they provide some feedback? Androstachys (talk) 08:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not a linguist, but until one arrives, I'd note that googling some of the words you mention with "plural", or "words in ance" and "plural", fails to produce any hint of such a rule having been prescribed by anyone. It would seem to me that most of these words are such that their plurals are only rarely wanted, and the appearance of a plural like "resonances" may therefore startle. Anyway, how would one avoid "resonances"?--Rallette (talk) 09:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Depending on the context, "Instances of resonance", "cases of resonance", "occurrences of resonance" etc. Androstachys (talk) 10:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why bother, when you can say "resonances"? If you have a resonance in one orbit, and a resonance in another orbit, you have two resonances. A resonance is a specific occurrence of something. Words like "maintenance" and "ambience" are broader terms that are not "likely" to be used as plurals, but that doesn't mean they can't be. Consider a word like "fish", whose plural is usually "fish" but the term "fishes" is also used. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Any noun can be pluralised. The universe by definition is everything; there ain't anything, anywhere, that isn't in the one and only universe, but people still talk about multiple universes.  By comparison, any lesser noun is chicken feed to pluralise; a context can be contrived for any such pluralisation - and that's limited only by one's imagination.  But your original statement is true, Androstachys: ".. there are certain words in English that do not lend themselves to plurals".  That doesn't mean, though, that plurals can't be dragged, coaxed or seduced out of them. --  Jack of Oz   ... speak! ...   11:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say the OP's premise should be that certain words do not lend themselves well to plurals, especially if they are more conceptual than tangible (resonance is tangible, so it's easy to pluralize), OR something that's already a plural, which is why "cattles" is not a term you're likely to hear. I once had a minor debate with someone about whether God is part of the universe. He was claiming that God was outside the universe. I claimed that the universe is, by definition, "everything". So if God exists, then He is part of the universe. My co-debater was using the term in reference to what we conventionally consider the physical universe, which would also allow for the possibilitie of "parallel universes". And presumably God could see them all, as He is "outside" of them; but that's another megillah altogether. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Concreteness (tangibility) is part of it, but the main issue here is countability. Words like "mud" are quite tangible, but they're not count nouns, so you can't say "four muds" (except in some kind of wordplay); you have to give it a container or a measure, as in "four splotches of mud". The question here is whether "resonance" can be treated as a count noun&mdash;which, in its technical sense, it can. rʨ anaɢ (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem: See (for instance) "Muds and mudstones: physical and fluid-flow properties". Perhaps no dictionary has a plural, but when we use this book as a source, do we avoid the plural? No, of course not.. See our article Bay mud. DVdm (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If no dictionary has muds, then Wiktionary is no dictionary! -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * :-) I had checked dictionary.reference.com and Webster. DVdm (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and by the way: Is Wiktionary no dictionary? - DVdm (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * See English plural. -- Wavelength (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In the context of the article, see the literature (via Google books and Google scholar): here, here, here and here. This clearly de-facto establishes the correctness of "resonances". Insisting that the entire literature is wrong, would be arrogantly against WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOR. DVdm (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As an astrophysicist, I would say that resonances is in widespread use, and it never occurred to me that there might be anything wrong with it. (Note also that, at least in this field, we can identify a resonance, whereas one doesn't often see the indefinite article with maintenance or the other examples on your list.)  -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "There was a prurience to his character which added interest to any conversation" "I saw a radiance in her face and heard charm in her voice" etc etc. I think all those words can take an indefinite article without suffering. The notion which I find strange is that, because something is countable, it may safely be pluralised. Historically I would doubt that technical papers are submitted to a grammarian before publication, and consequently this would lead to grammatic abominations seeing the light of day. If the matter ended there, little damage would be done, but scholars and researchers are inveterate copiers of ideas and phrases, so that pretty soon there is a proliferation of the horror. This abundance of mangling then prompts the less articulate mind to claim that because the horror is in common use, it must be correct. Androstachys (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Same with radiances, radiances in books and radiances in scholar and even pruriences in books and pruriences in scholar. DVdm (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by your "historically ... are" construction, but in the modern era, papers in the major journals are edited prior to publication, and my experience is that the technical editors of the Astrophysical Journal, at least, are diligent in their efforts. Anyway, since we don't have an académie anglaise, how do you propose that we determine correctness, aside from common use by careful and educated writers?  -- Coneslayer (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the OP also objects to the usage of a resonance, and again the literature uses it abundantly. As an example, see here and here. DVdm (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"Resonances" is also quite common in phonetics, when you're talking about how a given tube or chamber (such as the vocal tract) likes to vibrate at several specific "resonances". This usage is probably pretty much the same as the astrophysics one Coneslayer mentions above. rʨ anaɢ (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "Resonances" is common in music and sound. A quick search turned up lots of examples such as: Section 8.4.8 "Enclosure Resonances", Engineering noise control: theory and practice; Chapter 13, "Modal Resonances", Master Handbook of Acoustics; Section 9.2 "Effects of Reflections on Timbre--The Audibility of Resonances", "Resonances are the 'building blocks' of most of the sounds that interest, entertain, and inform us", and many other passages,Sound reproduction: loudspeakers and rooms; Chapter 8, "Experimental study of acoustic resonances of elastic spheres and hemispherically endcapped cylinders", and many other examples over 100+ other pages, Acoustic resonance scattering; Section "Resolution of Resonances", and "Possible Cochlear-Nuclear Responses to Resonances", Sound color; Sub-chapter "Entrainment with other types of resonances", Multidimensional Mind: Remote Viewing and the Evolution of Intelligence. Pfly (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * For centuries, and probably since language was invented, there have been people throwing up their hands in despair at some so-called "grammatical horror", and fighting desperate rearguard actions to prevent said horror entering common use. "But it's wrong!" they cry in frustration.  "The rules don't allow it!"  "Split infinitives and dangling participles are a sign of an atrophied intellect!" "You can't use parent as a verb!"  People have formed learned societies dedicated to Putting A Stop To This Sort Of Thing, and written passionate texts arguing in great detail how it will inevitably lead to the downfall of Man and the end of civilization as we know it.  Meanwhile, of course, language change marches on regardless.  The fact is that if it can be counted then someone, somewhere, will find a situation in which it needs to be pluralized and will duly do so provided the resulting word can be pronounced and written down.  And while it may give purists a nice warm feeling to be able to say that this is incorrect, and the resulting plural is "not really a word", if the new plural form turns out to be useful and unambiguous then it will become more widespread, will eventually appear in dictionaries, and the purists' great-grandchildren will defend it doughtily against all the new "grammatical horrors" popping up in their own time.  If it isn't terribly useful, or fails to stand out clearly as a term in its own right, it will probably never gain a place in the language.  There are no other practical criteria for correctness other than adoption and use over a sufficiently long period of time by a sufficiently large proportion of all speakers of the language.  Dictionaries and grammars are all eventually descriptive, not prescriptive.  I accept, although with a sinking heart, that the abomination that is "alot" will probably be used alot by my grandchildren, even though every time I see it I want to attack the perpetrator with a red pen and write Two Words! across his or her unlettered forehead.  Intellectual debate about whether something is correct or not is a charming pastime and keeps grammarians employed in these lean times, but if it's going to enter the language then it will, period.   Ka renjc 19:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't a prescriptivist issue, though; on the issue of count and mass nouns, there are things that simply don't make sense and (unlike split infinitives and ending sentences with a preposition) adult native speakers simply don't produce. For instance, *"there are three muds on the floor" rather than "there are three splotches of mud on the floor", that just isn't said. (Except in the technical example DVdm mentioned above, where it seems like "muds" is referring to "varieties of mud" and is used in a jargon-y sense.) This isn't some grand academy decreeing from above "mud can't be plural!"; it's just part of our innate knowledge of countability in this language. rʨ anaɢ (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, it's all about coming up with a reasonable scenario in which the pluralisation fits, and that's virtually always possible, although a particular individual may be bereft of ideas. The OP's first non-pluralisable word was 'maintenance', but try this: "There are two kinds of maintenance: (a) actively expending energy or money to keep a house, car, one's health etc in its optimal state; (b) the passive continuation of an existing policy or practice.  Some languages use the same word for both maintenances, others have different words."   --  Jack of Oz   ... speak! ...   19:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, the proposed alternatives "instances of resonance", "cases of resonance", "occurrences of resonance" do not suffice, in my view. If we're talking about orbital resonances, for example, the 2:3 resonance is a resonance.  The 1:2 resonance is another resonance.  Together, they make two resonances.  The Pluto-Neptune system is an "instance of resonance", "case of resonance", or "occurrence of resonance," specifically the 2:3 resonance.  Together, the Pluto-Neptune system and the Ganymede-Europa-Io system are cases of resonance.  -- Coneslayer (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree--one of the quotes I gave above was "Resonances are the 'building blocks' of most of the sounds that interest, entertain, and inform us." This sentence isn't about any specific "occurrences of resonance", rather the general concept. Pfly (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is exactly what I meant with my earlier remark about going against WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOR. Replacing "resonances" with "occurrences of resonance" simply changes the intended meaning of the sources. The issue is semantics, not grammar. DVdm (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * One final example, then I'll leave this alone. Musical harmony is often described in terms of the resonance between different pitches. Here's a sentence from the book "The Harmonic Experience" by W. A. Mathieu: "In part 1 we have been singing in the lattice of just intonation, moving from pure tone to pure tone, threading melodies through a honeycomb of resonances." It's hard for me to think of a way to say this as clearly and succinctly without pluralizing "resonance". The way resonances between musical pitches are described in music theory seems similar to orbital resonances. It's not about specific cases but abstract cases, like any ratio of 3:2, 5:4, etc. Or even more abstractly, about all resonances whose ratios have prime factors no higher than 3, or 5, etc (each of which is an infinite set). I can't think of a non-awkward way to talk about these abstract sets of resonances without the word "resonances". Okay, I'll stop going on about it. Pfly (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If one looks at language as a living, evolving organism then one has to accept these mutations as inevitable. Of course, that means that crippled phrases and words stand out from the healthy herd of wildebeest and become targets for the roaming lions of grammar. When I hear gems of evolution like "new-cew-lar" for nuclear or "exiting out of a room", then one does wish that some new-born babes had been strangled at birth. Androstachys (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization of ranks and titles and names
I am aware that a generic rank is not capitalized: "The captain asked a question." However, if a specific person is referred to by his rank alone, is it then capitalized. "'What is your opinion, Captain?' he asked." or "'What is your opinion, captain?' he asked." More specifically to what I am doing: I am writing a story in which the religious organization is militant and admits to no other belief than its own. Its full name is the Church for the Redemption of Man. Do I then write: "The Church doesn't believe that." or "The church doesn't believe that." And when members speak of their organization do they say: "'We in the Church don't believe that.'" or "'We in the church don't believe that.'". Finally, a trickier issue. In this story lesser church clergy retain their names. So I write about Curate John as "The curate asked a question." However, all upper church clergy give up their personal names as an act of atonement and a sign of dedication. So there is the Inquisitor of the Grand Cathedral of Salidon and the Prelate of Saledocia. In the context of the story they have no other name even though it is also a rank. So I am writing: "The Prelate asked the Inquisitor a question." treating this as if it were "Bill asked Mary a question." Do you think this is appropriate? 12.199.208.186 (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In terms of church and Church, you're right that people tend to refer to their organisation as the Church and the building as the church. So "The Church doesn't believe that.", "We in the Church don't believe that." (unless you mean "We in this building"!) and "They walked into the church.". 86.164.69.239 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC).


 * I agree with 86.164... on the capitalization of church. On your last question, whether to capitalize prelate and inquisitor in "The prelate asked the inquisitor a question", I do not think that the terms should be capitalized in that particular example. If it were "Prelate asked Inquisitor a question", then I would capitalize because the titles are being used as names.  However, in the first example, you are not using their full names.  Also, names are not usually preceded by articles.  In direct address, would your characters say, "Prelate, what is your opinion on this matter?" Or would they say, "The Prelate, what is your opinion on this matter?"  I am guessing that they would say the former, in which case articles are not a part of the characters' names, and references to the titles of characters containing articles should not be capitalized.  Marco polo (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think capitalization is OK in the last example. We write "The President asked the Prime Minister a question" too. +Angr 14:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * While the forms cited by Angr certainly occur, I think that they are mistakes, or at best an arbitrary style. The question becomes, who qualifies for capitalization when referred to by title?  Just heads of state or heads of government? Government officials in general? Above what level?  Is "the Mayor asked the Alderman a question" okay, and if not, why not, if the above example is okay?  How about "the Truant Officer asked the Pupil a question"?  Or should it be "the Truant Officer asked the pupil a question" because pupil is not a government office?  The style used in most publications I've worked on would be "The president asked the prime minister a question" but "President Obama asked Prime Minister Cameron a question."  Marco polo (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * When I was in school, we were explicitly taught always to capitalize "President" when the reference was to the President of the United States; other presidents were lower-case, thus "The president [of the university] asked the president [of the bank] a question". +Angr 15:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe the distinction is one of proper nouns versus common nouns. In English we capitalize proper nouns (nouns that name a specific entity), and do not capitalize regular, descriptive nouns. To my knowledge, it would be "The prelate asked ..." if you were using the word "prelate" descriptively, and "The Prelate asked ..." if using "Prelate" as a proper noun in substitution for his name. Key to using "Prelate" as a proper noun is its specificity. If there are a large number of prelates running around it lapses into being merely descriptive. Consistency also helps. If he's consistently refereed to as "John", and only occasionally as "the prelate", lowercase would likely be the better style. - Also keep in mind that for invented, fictional locales, authors sometimes contrive orthography as a stylistic choice. Even though we might not capitalize the title, they might, because of what it connotes to them. -- 174.24.200.38 (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I just disagree that "the Prelate" or "the President" are really proper nouns. They are descriptive terms. If you had a story in which one and only one character was a janitor, would you really refer to him as "the Janitor" with a capital "J"? As for "the President" being used with reference to the president of the United States, I know that some publications adopt that style, but I can't see a justification for it beyond exaggerated reverence for the head of state. To my eyes, it is disturbingly reminiscent of "il Duce".  Marco polo (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You would capitalize "Janitor" only if that is the primary name by which a person is being called. For example.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Oxford MOS notes: "Capitals are preferred when a short-form mention of a title is used as a synonym for a specified person, an organisation in an institutional or official sense, or a government department." eg. the Duke; the Princess, the Ministry (of Defence). The key words are "synonym" and "specified".  ie. not descriptive.  In the given examples, I would capitalise Prelate, Inquisitor, Church.  You can choose what to do with "curate", but make it consistent.  (I would keep it lower case, given your example.)  Gwinva (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all your comments! I see this is a more complex issue than I originally thought. I believe there is one point though that is being missed and that makes comparisons to the real world difficult. Everyone I know has a personal name so that a title or rank is just an adjunct to this. "The president is President Obama." "The king was King Louis XIV." However, in the story context, the Prelate and Inquisitor have no other names. (The implication is that these clergymen have given up any personal existance outside the framework of the Church.) There are by implication other prelates (and inquisitors), although I don't discuss them. But there is only one Prelate of Saledocia and one Inquisitor of the (etc). I could then write "The Prelate of Saledocia asked the Inquisitor of the Grand .... a question." but this seems cumbersome to use every time. So I shorten it to "The Prelate asked the Inquisitor ...". In this case there is only one prelate being referred to. (There are many Bills in the world; does one write the name Bill without a capital when referring to all the Bills in general??) Anyway, I think the point about specificity is pertinent. (I also found your reference to "the Janitor" interesting.) In this case "the Prelate" refers continually to only one specific person. So, based on what's been said, I think the capitalization is appropriate. However, the use of the article "the" does bother me. (As you point out above, one doesn't say "the Bill".) But saying "Prelate asked Inquisitor ..." seems awkward to me. (Ahhh, how one can become engrossed in the side issues of a story.) Thanks everyone again! :) 12.199.208.186 (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It is entirely appropriate to use the definite article in/with a name, if one is grammatically appropriate. For example "the United States", "the Netherlands", "the Democratic People's Republic  of Korea". While in these cases the "the" is grammatical, and thus lower cased, there are certain entities where the "the" is an official part of the name, and are thus capitalized: The Hague and The Gambia come to mind. And while English speakers don't say "the Bill", in reference to personal names, such constructions are found in other European languages, such as German. -- 174.24.200.38 (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Spoken idiosyncrasy
This may well be an Australianism, but people here often say things like "It'll be a whole nother day." What happens here seems not to be mere contraction; nother is not used in any other situation, prefixed by an apostrophe or not. It's as if the word another has been split by whole. Is there a term for this phenomenon? Or am I noticing something that's not there? Thanks in advance. — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 14:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It might be an example of tmesis. --  Jack of Oz   ... speak! ...   14:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's tmesis; it's even given as an example in the "Tmesis in English" section of our article. ("A whole other", however, is a perfectly normal construction.) Deor (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI this is not just an Australian thing. Perfectly common in American English too, at least. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's in the article, but I don't think it's legit. What exactly does the expression mean? It just doesn't seem likely to me that the speaker is taking "It'll be another day" and adding "whole" in there for emphasis - the two sentences (with "whole" and without) don't seem to mean the same thing. Matt Deres (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's used to emphasize difference ("that's a whole nother issue", like "that's a separate issue entirely") or multipleness ("I still have to read a whole nother book"). rʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * See English articles. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * See wikt:a whole nother and wikt:druthers. (I definitely do not endorse those expressions.) -- Wavelength (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't work out what Matt thinks is not "legit". --ColinFine (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Nor I. I can easily imagine hearing "that's a whole nother problem" in, say, a workplace setting, even if the speaker were a highly educated engineer.  I wouldn't be surprised in the least to hear someone working on the Gulf oil spill say "once we fix the leak, cleaning u[ the mess is a whole nother can of worms."  The emphasis is not only via the expression but via its contrast with more formal or mainstream speech.  --- OtherDave (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I was thinking that it was more likely a corruption of "...a whole other..." Matt Deres (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just half an hour ago I heard the UK-born Matt Preston on MasterChef Australia promising to take the contestants' appreciation of some culinary thing or other to "a whole nother level". --  <font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus"> ... speak! ...   10:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ring inscription
I found a ring which has inscriptions on the inside and outside. I notified the police but no-one's claimed it yet. It proved impossible to photograph so I rolled it on some blu-tack and photographed instead. It's probably an upside-down mirror image but is it possible to read what it says and translate it? Is it likely to be a wedding band? --Frumpo (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See One Ring. Deor (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I should have mentioned that I think it's probably Arabic to avoid wasting the clicks/time of those of you who don't know the language.--Frumpo (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not Arabic, it's Tengwar. Deor's link is the right one. If you turn invisible when you put it on, you may want to throw it into the nearest volcano. +Angr 14:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How extraordinary. When I picked it up I went through the whole "One ring to bind them" stuff and asked whether people could still see me when I put it on, but it didn't occur that it might be a model of The Ring.  Judging by its small size, I'd guess it's aimed at kids.  I feel a bit daft now :-) --Frumpo (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I flipped the image so the text is easily legible. It is indeed exactly the first line of the original inscription as shown in the image to the right. +Angr 15:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's definitely my precious. Thank you Deor and Angr.--Frumpo (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't get too attached to it. Gwinva (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a note, those things came in the Lord of the Rings Risk games and were rather Hobbit sized, so it would appear to be the most likely origin. They are not valuable so you should not be surprised if it goes unclaimed. Googlemeister (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This thread was tooooo-frigging funny. how do I nominate it for question of the year? -- Ludwigs 2 00:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just worried that I might have given away my location to any Nazgûl readers.--Frumpo (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Translation of a French Military Unit name
Could someone please translate this for me? Compagnie de passage de Saïgon LeonidasSpartan (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a unit of the Foreign Legion that was stationed in Saigon, beginning in 1947. We don't seem to have anything about it in English, but the French Wikipedia has some info. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It was apparently a transport company of the 2nd Foreign Infantry Regiment (which is what the "2e R.E.I" on their badge stands for). Deor (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks I appreciate that info, but can somebody tell me what they think the most accurate translation of that name is:

I would like to create an article for that unit. I just want to be sure about the nameLeonidasSpartan (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This site (penultimate item in list) uses "Foreign Legion Reception Company" to refer to the unit. Deor (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Help me decoding this arabic/french
Got this message from a Tunisian friend in facebook: nchalah kol 3am wenti 7ay b5ir chere amie. I've got the "nchalah" and the "chere amie" but the rest is a mystery. Help? Sadly, google translate can't do text interspersed with numbers. :) Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We have Arabic chat alphabet, which helps. "Kul aam wa antum bikhayr" is approximately "happy new year" (or more like "good things for you all year" or something), and this is obviously similar, so assuming that "hay" is life in Tunisian as well as standard Arabic, it's a blessing for your life and your year. I'm not entirely certain, but Google suggests it is also a birthday greeting, so that sounds about right. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Never would have guessed we had the article Arabic chat alphabet. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

nchalah = May God

kol 3am wenti 7ay b5ir= either "Happy New year" or "Happy Birthday" depending on the context

Chere amie = Dear Friend

213.130.116.5 (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You've decoded the message well. It's a standard Arabic greeting used on birthdays and holidays. It's equivalent would be "May you be well all year", with an Inchallah thrown in for good measure. And since it's Tunisian Arabic, a few words of French as well. --Xuxl (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Old Swedish tune
I would have never thought to ask this question here but it is something I've wondered about for many years, and reading some of the above questions, perhaps someone here can help me. Many years ago in the 60's, Grandpa Anderson, a Swedish immigrant, used to play the 78 rpm recording of a Swedish tune, "Nickolena", and he always cried when he played it. I've tried to do research, but I'm not even sure that my spelling is correct and I've never found a mention of it. Any old Swedes out there who can help me out? Gandydancer (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Nikolina", I think—links to a MIDI file of a piano performance and to the lyrics are here. Deor (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Apparently it was "Nikolina", and we have an article with the lyrics - Hjalmar_Peterson, who went by the stage name "Olle i Skratthult". I would say that song lyrics should not normally be included in an article about a singer/entertainer, so count yourself lucky on this occasion.  --  <font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus"> ... speak! ...   19:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So you wish bad luck on future wikipedia users hoping for song lyrics? Odd policy. 213.122.61.131 (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The lyrics of many songs are in copyright, and so may not appear in Wikipedia articles. --ColinFine (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly do not wish bad luck on anyone about anything. What on earth lead you to think that's my attitude?  I was making the point that an article about a singer would not normally contain the lyrics of their signature tune; those lyrics would more appropriately be found in an article about the song itself.  In this case, there is no article about the song; but the lyrics just happen to have been included in the singer's article, so that's a stroke of luck.  Next week they may not be there anymore.  (JackofOz =) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Count yourself lucky" has rather a negative tone to my ears - "count yourself lucky that your football didn't smash my greenhouse" or "count yourself lucky that it wasn't me who caught you".  DuncanHill (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a kind of negativity about it, but it's not necessarily directed at the person being spoken to. Under ideal circumstances, the lyrics would not have been put into the Hjalmar Peterson article; or if they had been, they'd have been removed promptly.  But they were there when Gancydancer happened to be searching for them, so s/he is in luck.  "Count yourself lucky" was my way of saying just that. --  <font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus"> ... speak! ...   20:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I certainly did luck out with you Jack! Thanks! Grandpa Gunnard Anderson immigrated to Minnesota and along with other Swedes, Finns, and Slovenians worked in the Soudan Mine on the northern Minnesota Iron Range. This information can now go on my daughter's Family Tree site for others in the family to enjoy. I even found a recording of Nicolina on the web!

BTW, I had given up on this as it did not show up on my watch list and just thought I'd check to be sure... Thanks to Dear, as well. Jack, how ever did you know this? Gandydancer (talk) 02:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't. I started with what you gave us, Nickolena.  I googled it and found a RootsWeb site where someone who has the music spelt it "Nikolina".  That sounded promising, so I googled that spelling.  Not much luck there.  I then googled "Nikolina Swedish song", and there large as life was the Wikipedia article Hjalmar Peterson. It took all of 90 seconds.  --  <font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus"> ... speak! ...   11:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And if people are going to misspell my name, I prefer that they misspell it "Deer", as that's the Modern English reflex. "Dear" just seems too familiar. :-) Deor (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Can I just enquire, Gandydancer, about your use of "luck out"? I've always understood that to mean you've had no luck, or bad luck, but not good luck, which is the sense in which you seem to be using it above.  Is it different where you're from?  --  <font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus"> ... speak! ...   12:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See here. I guess the first sense is mainly American? Deor (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, so, two completely contradictory meanings. Another example of two great countries being separated by a common language.  Thanks, Deor.  --  <font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus"> ... speak! ...   21:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Arabic name for Tel Aviv district
What is the Arabic name for Tel Aviv District? That article needs its Arabic. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Done (it's "منطقة تل أبيب"). Adam Bishop (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much :) WhisperToMe (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Japanese sentence help
Hi. I'm having difficulties with this:

よくあんな男とデート出来るものだ.

The translation is "How could you date a guy like that?!"

I understand all of it except the role of よく. What is that doing in the sentence? Is it possibly contributing to the sense of "How could you..."? Can you explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.26.25 (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Literally translated, it means "[How could it be that = ものだ] you are fully (よく 'well') able to date a guy like that!?' It can be said that here the よく just adds intensity to the verb 出来る, but really in this case it implies feeling totally comfortable with doing something. Hope this helps. -- <font face="Freestyle Script" color="blue">KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, I'd say "feeling comfortable" is an over-reading. Phrases with よく like this are kind of set, when the thing that is being done is being implied negatively. The fact is, it's hard to pick up the negative connotation without the ものだ and the あんな, for example.

よく彼とデートする. --> often go on a date with him よく彼とデートできる. --> often am able to go on a date with him? how can you date with him? i can't tell without hearing it being said. よく彼とデートできるね. --> same as above, slightly more likely to be negative.

This formation is probably the closest you'll ever get to sarcasm in Japanese, but it's always clear that the よく doesn't mean "good" or "often".

So basically, you shouldn't be debating the meaning of よく. Without よく, the original phrase is completely different: あんな男とデート出来るものだ. "Somebody is the type of person who can date that kind of guy." It's a statement of fact, and the only reason it's negative is because of あんな, which is usually insulting. 男とデートできるものだ. "Somebody can date with guys." = no negative connotation, contrasts with a person who is unable to date with guys. よく　simply makes it an opinion statement, a judgment on the person to whom the statement was directed. 210.165.30.169 (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The usage of this よく is #5 and 6 and #4. It has nothing to do with "well" nor "often". Think it as an emphasizing adverb with the meaning of "dare", connoting "surprise", in this sentence. Oda Mari (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Mari, that's what I was saying. -- <font face="Freestyle Script" color="blue">KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone. 86.173.36.183 (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC).

Makh Tsi Di Eygelakh
Does anyone know the lyrics of the haunting Yiddish song 'Makh Tsi Di Eygelakh', composed in the Warsaw Ghetto? I heard it performed by the klezmer band 'Brave Old World' in the CD 'Klezmer Revival', if that is helpful in any way. If someone could provide a translation of the lyrics, that would be even more fantastic! Luthinya (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it should be "Makh Tsu Di Eygelekh" ("Close your little eyes"). (This might help your search) ---Sluzzelin talk  22:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's tsu in standard Yiddish, but tsi in certain dialects. I'm not sure what variation there is in the vowel of the final syllable. +Angr 22:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Angr. I wasn't aware. Luthinya, I found a transcription and translation here. ---Sluzzelin talk  22:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Independent or dependent clause?
I have a definition that a compound sentence should have:


 * Two or more statements
 * Two or more independent clauses
 * Two or more subject & verb combinations.

It then goes on to give an example:


 * "Singapore has 11,910 people per square mile; Mongolia has only three."

I don't see how "Mongolia has only three." is an independent clause, because it doesn't seem to stand on its own as a complete thought or statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.58.156 (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have had different teachers say different things about what defines a dependent clause; I believe it is one of those things in English that the grammatical "experts" can't entirely agree upon. I have always gone with the philosophy that if it's grammatically correct on its own, it's an independent clause, but I know that there are people out there that disagree with me.  Part of the reason that I go by my philosophy is that it was always so subjective when we had to choose what was important to a sentence and what wasn't.  I think that "Mongolia has only three" is an independent clause, because it can exist on its own.  Granted, if I handed you a slip of paper that says "Mongolia has only three," you'd say "that's nice, but three what?", but from a grammatical stand point it is a fine sentence. Falconus p  t   c 21:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * From a strict grammatical standpoint, only things introduced by "that" (as in "I think that he..."), relative pronouns ("the man who..."), or perhaps prepositions ("I'll cook dinner while you...") can be considered dependent clauses. Things introduced by a semicolon (as in your example) or a conjunction (as in "Singapore has 11,910 people per square mile, whereas Mongolia has only three") are independent clauses. The fact that "Mongolia has only three" can't seem to stand alone is due to discourse rather than grammar per se. <b class="IPA">r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I get it. With "Mongolia has only three.", the direct object is there, but "hidden". If we had "Because Mongolia has only three." that would be a dependent clause and a fragment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.58.156 (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a minor note, a sentence (or independent clause) does not have to have a direct object. In the case of "Magnolia has only three," however, "three" is the direct object, if I'm not mistaken.  Falconus p  t   c 22:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The "while" in "I'll cook dinner while you walk the dog" isn't a preposition, it's a conjunction. There are two kinds of conjunctions, subordinating and coordinating. Subordinating conjunctions (like "because", "while", "whereas") introduce subordinate clauses, while coordinating conjunctions (like "and", "but", "or") introduce independent clauses. As is so often the case, it's easier to understand English grammar if you know a foreign language: in this case, people who know German will be at an advantage at telling the two kinds apart, because in German independent clauses and subordinate clauses have different word orders. +Angr 22:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that the missing "people per square mile" is a case of ellipsis. A clause that would be self-standing but for an ellipsis is still usually classified as independent. -Elmer Clark (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

62.31.58.156 -- The traditional grammatical term for this phenomenon is Asyndeton... AnonMoos (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)